The Bible explains the Holocaust perfectly. In fact a main story of the Bible is the story of an earlier holocaust, namely the fall of Israel to Babylon. This was certainly a holocaust with a similar proportion of death and destruction to the recent Holocaust. The reason for the first holocaust was that Israel had become corrupt. Israel had absorbed the false beliefs of the surrounding cultures and had lost all moral integrity. As a result, Israel was punished. This was in fact a necessary thing because Israel needed to be purified. A corrupt culture should be destroyed and one can hope that the remnant will become good. The Bible says that both the righteous and the wicked were punished in this holocaust and this is inevitable when there is such violence.

I see the recent holocaust as being more or less the same story. Many Jews absorbed and participated in the Liberal culture of Europe. Liberalism is no better than worshipping Baal. The Wiemar Republic was a particularly liberal society which incorporated many Jews. The liberal Jews lost all morality and were/are basically corrupt. The Nazis played the same role that Babylon had played in the earlier holocaust. The main difference between these two holocausts in my mind is that modern Jews have misunderstood the recent holocaust. They portray themselves as victims without accepting any responsibility for their participation in Liberalism. If Jews don't learn the right lesson, then history will repeat itself and there will be more holocausts. I would prefer that that be avoided, but it can only be avoided if Jews shift their focus from studying the Talmud to studying the Bible.

Second, you should know that I have been happily married for 22 years, I have 2 kids, a son and a daughter, that my parents are Holocaust survivors, and that I am Jewish and attend an Orthodox synagogue.

"The Jews are a strange bunch of people. I mean I've heard of persecution but what they went through is ridiculous. But the great thing is after thousand of years of waiting and holding on and fighting, they finally made it."
--Sammy Davis Jr.
(Still counts as a Simpsons quote!)

fschmidt, can you point to the piskei din that blame the Jews for complicity in the Weimar Republic and the Holocaust? If Robert Pervis is right, then my instincts about your frumkeit were correct, and you're just a bluffer.

...but there's still no mention anywhere in the Bible the words 'Hitler', 'Nazism', 'Third Reich' and 'Final Solution' verbatim, therefore your argument is invalid, and you still FAIL.

And - as you 'attend an Orthodox synagogue' as you claim - why should you give a fuck about the Christian Bible? TV's "Man vs. Food" presenter Adam Richman was born in a Jewish family, yet despite Leviticus he eats Pork and Shellfish (boy, does he eat it!).

This fool can't even keep his lies straight from one paragraph to the next."

@Steven Mading

"So he claims to be an atheist but then claims some sort of divine retribution is the reason for (what he calls) the first and second Jewish holocausts. Bullshit. You can't claim to be an atheist and also claim to believe in divine retribution."

With his constant lying, I'm starting to doubt even his religious credentials. Like I say, "Man Vs. Food"'s Adam Richman eats pork & shellfish; does that make him any less a Jewish person, compared to, say... the Auschwitz survivor I met and talked with, who told me that when the SS guards murdered his family before his eyes, his Jewish faith died with them that day?

'This fool can't even keep his lies straight from one paragraph to the next'. Or from one forum to the next. Such is the nature of the right-winger: once they start lying, they can't stop. And hypocrisy is just as addictive.

Hypocrisy (as in being right-wing). As with Misogyny: Unjustifiable.

Not taking into account how fschit relies upon the example of 'Robin Hood', who - speaking as a Brit, even I acknowledge he & his adventures are nothing more than a folk tale; pure myth & legend (and even as a 'P.R. tool' at the time*) - is probably, certainly in this case, the worst example of a bad analogy to use in an argument (if his BS can be considered an 'argument' for the unjustifiable), just two words can completely annihilate his argument as a whole:

Self Control.

What is (or should be) in the psychological makeup of any man who dares to think he has the right to be considered a normal, decent, civilised, sane member of the human race. Because no normal, decent, civilsed, human man would so much as contemplate the notion of even thinking of forcing his will upon a woman in any way, for whatever reason. After all, isn't paedophilia essentially the same thing: exerting your control upon someone weaker than you, certainly to 'satisfy' your sexual desires, just as (your words, verbatim) re. 'rape':

'evolutionary need for sex [...] men here are justified in rape'

Informed Consent being the basis of the laws making paedophilia illegal, nay, the worst imaginable social crime next to murder (but then, like I say, no normal, decent, civilised, sane man would so much as contemplate the notion of even thinking of assaulting a child), thus Consent (or Lack of, in this instance) makes rape just as socially unacceptable.

Therefore, those (and it matters not their race, creed etc) who think of going down the route of raping a woman forfeit their right to be considered a human being, ergo they are inferior subhumans. QED.

And frankly, 15-to-life in the slammer is less than what they deserve. Still, at least (at least I hope; for the sake of the poor potential victim) fschit hasn't actually crossed that psychological line, and actually raped a woman. Because then - as far as the US's** prisons are concerned - he'd learn for himself what the poor woman has to deal with, when she's unjustifiably assaulted in this way; after all, the poor men in that jail have to find an outlet for their 'evolutionary need for sex', when there are no women around to be the recipient of their desires; even consenting women. Oh no, rape - being the national sport in ALL US prisons - isn't about exerting control; who's the 'Alpha Male', the 'Daddy' [/"Scum"**], or merely just to prove a point, nosiree! [/mega-sarcasm]

I'm reminded (particularly by the forum post screenshots in this thread; appreciate the saving of such, Shax!) of an old saying that's relevant in this case (and of all his right-wing ilk; Rush Limburger, Mike 'Savage' [LOL] Weenie, I'm looking at you):

'Opinions are like arses: everyone has one, but not everyone wants to air theirs in public. They certainly don't want yours shoved in their faces.'

And these days, even merely 'venting' is no justification for so much as even thinking of thinking in such a way as you did, fschit. And as proven by Shax's preservation of your own incriminating words, you have now discovered that even Freedoms (especially speech) come with Responsibilities. That's why the concept of Political Correctness exists these days. I don't even think as you do; I like being Correct. Correct is the superior state to be in.

Ah, how the mere use of 'File' and 'Save Page As' on a browser (or at least 'Print Screen' and 'Paste' on Paint, then cropping the relevant parts & 'Save As', re. Shax's example) can completely annihilate someone, never mind their 'opinion'. That's precisely why being Politically Correct is the superior state to be in, as at least you preserve your good standing in society with reputation intact, as opposed to being thought of as a slimebag who's lower than the AIDS virus.

Don't so much as think in such a way, and you'll never be caught actually having so much as a reputation/image-annihilating 'opinion', condemning yourself out of your own mouth. Like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdoch & all their right-wing ilk (and not even Mitt The Tit Romney is innocent; not for nothing was he referred to as being 'born with a silver foot in his mouth', re. his multiple gaffes), You're such a loss to the diplomatic corps, fschit. [/hyper-sarcasm]

Just as it wouldn't kill right-wing fundies if they all became left-wing Atheists (as it wouldn't kill ALL evil dictators to become more like the Dalai Lama), it wouldn't kill ALL misogynists to become women-respecting people: normal, decent, civilised, human men possessing what makes them normal, decent, civilised, sane men: self-control.

Here endeth the lesson.

*- There's historical evidence to suggest that "Robin Hood", or (in Ye Olde English) 'Robyn Hode', was an advertising story invented by the guild of textile manufacturers & colourers (Nottingham was the centre of the cloth dyeing trade in medieval Britain), spread via storytellers (paid by said guild) far & wide so as to spread the word of their fine clothing etc, so as the merchants could sell their wares, via the 'metaphor' of a heroic former nobleman who did good deeds for the poor. The notion of Robin wearing 'Lincoln Green' is a misnomer; merely a mistranslation of post-Saxon early English 'Lincoln Graine', which is actually the colour Red.

**- In prisons here in the UK, the practice of institutionalised rape doesn't exist (despite that notorious scene in the film "Scum"); even rapists (of either gender, but especially of men against women) are referred to as 'Nonces', who - along with paedophiles - are considered the lowest of the low by the rest of the prison's inmates, and usually given the broken glass/faeces in the food/bed, urine in the drinks, and beatings in the showers/shankings in the exercise yard treatment (with the prison guards 'looking the other way'). But that's uncommon these days, as 'Nonces' are kept in a separate wing from the rest of the prison population, therefore the prison-originated acronym 'Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise': NONCE, which has entered the lingua franca to refer to the likes of Gary Glitter, Jonathan King, Jimmy Savile et al: Paedophiles.